Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-10-25

ALUM l. oGAAAs 4ALo PAOSONubAOA wac AOi
burglary and theft, and the indictment
contained two counts, one for burglary
and theft in the dsy time, and one for
was convicted and aojadged guilty OF
burglary, and the only question arising
upon the record is as to the sufficiency OF
| the indictment as charge for burglary.
Held: That the fact that the same court
may charge two offenses, and that the
party might have been convicted for
either burglary or theft P. c., Art. 7l2,
| is no argument that tie count is insult.
Gent for burglary, because where the two
ofenses are charged in the same counts,
the rule is that on conviction the thief!
would be included in the burglary, and no
judgment could be rendered for theft.
In such conviction for burglary, ii
would be a bar to subsequent prosecu-
| ton for theft. Affirmed. White, P. j.
E. A. Parker vs. the State; appeal from
| Cass. This is companion case to that
OF j. T Melton, decided above, and the
points therein decided are decisive of this
case. White, P. J.
Ed Moore vs.. the State; appeal from
McLennan. Where there are no bills OF
exception, and no fundamental error is
apparent upon the face Of the record, the
judgment of the court below will be
affirmed. Affirmed. Wilson, j.
Charles Barley vs.. the State; appeal
from Bexar. This was a conviction for
burglary. The state, over objections Of
appellant, proved the return Of knife by
the defendants brother, which had been
taken from the burglarized room. This
is assigned as error. Held: The return
of the knife was admissible to prove that
it had been stolen by some one from the
house, to prove the corpus deficit of its
theft. Affirmed. Wilson, j.
W. J. Clark vs.. the STATE; appeal from
Fannin. This was q convection for theft
of an oVercoat, value $50. The state
was permitted to prove, over objections
of appellant, what the coat cost in another
state. Held: This testimony was ad-
Missile. Appellant also objects because
the jury WAS permitted to amend their
verdict without retiring to the jury room
This was no error. Affirmed. Wilson, j
Juan Sslinos vs.. the S ate; appeal from
Duval. Where special charges asked by
party are sufficiently covered by the
general charge of the court below this
court will not reverse. Affirmed. Will
son, j.
Ex-psrte Thum; application for writ OF
habeas corpus; from Medina. RelEtor
was sheriff of Medins county. The re-
cord shows that he and w. J. Hildebrand
had controversy. They were sitting in
the District courtroom when Hildebrand
left and said he was going to the clerk s
Office to look at some records. Relator
followed him in few minutes. Relstor
is large man, weighing 200 pounds; de-
ceased freil, weak man, weighing about
$50 pounds. Relator followed deceased
into the clerks Office, came up behind
him, and Selling large mucilage bottle
half full of mucilsge, weighing about two
pounds, struck deceased over the head,
knocking him to the floor. He then
struck deceased, who was still on the
floor, with the remnant of the bottle
which he held in his hand, and con-
tinued striking him until the bottle
was entirely broken TO pieces. De-
ceased then got up and walked to table,
the blood and mucilsge covering his face.
Relator then knocked him down with his
fist, knocking him under the table. De,
ceased finally succeeded in getting on his
feet and said: "Please don't kill me-"
ReIator then said: eyes, d-n you "
Deceased then went out into the hall 81
the courthouse, relator following with
his hand on his pistol. Relator reached
his head outside the door, his body re-
naming inside, to see what deceased was
| doing. Deceased then pulled a pistol
and holding it trembllnglyin both hands
fred down the hall. Relator then fired
the fatal shot. Ihe court below refused
bail. Held: There was no error in the
| court below, and the writ of habeas cor.
pus is refused. White, P.J.
Frank Luster ct al. vs.. the State; ap-
peal from Marion. This is an appeal from
Judgment against the principal and
sureties on forfeited appearance bond
The assistant Attorney General moves tc
dismiss on the ground, among others
that there are no briefs on file with The
transcript. Held: There being nc
briefs in this, or in the lower courts fol
appellants, the case is dismissed. Dis
Fsnissed. Wilson, J.
Il